The High Court closed the contempt proceedings without further inquiry after the respondent filed a revised order dated 03.07.2024, considering prior judgments. The court granted liberty to challenge the new order in appropriate proceedings.
Contempt proceedings closed with liberty to challenge the order dated 03.07.2024 in appropriate proceedings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM
THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1946
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1143 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 04.12.2023 IN WP(C) NO.40202 OF 2023
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS/PETITIONER IN WP(C):
1 SARANYA.P.T, AGED 32 YEARS UPST, KMHSS, KUTTOOR NORTH, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 6763052 RASHIDA PARAKKAL, AGED 30 YEARS UPST, KMHSS, KUTTOOR NORTH, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676305BY ADVS.
AUGUSTINE JOSEPH
GEORGE RENOY
ARJUN REMANAN
RESPONDENT/S1ST RESPONDENT IN WP(C0
RAMESH KUMAR
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
NOW WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION,
DOWN HILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN – 676505
GP S.UNNIKRISHNAN
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 01.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
Cont. Case (C) No.1143 of 2024 in W.P.(C) No.40202 of 2023
2
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
................................................................. Cont. Case (C) No.1143 of 2024 in W.P.(C) No.40202 of 2023
................................................................. Dated this the 1st day of August, 2024
JUDGMENT
The above contempt of court case is filed alleging that issuance of Exts.P2 and P3 is not in accordance with the direction in the judgment dated 04.12.2023. When this was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has called for an explanation through the learned Government Pleader regarding the said aspect. Learned Government Pleader submits that subsequently a revised order has been passed on 03.07.2024 taking into consideration the dictum laid down in the judgments referred to as Exts.P5 and P6. In view of the above, I am not inclined to proceed further with the contempt. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2024, it is open for them to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. Granting such liberty the contempt court case is closed.
VIJU ABRAHAM
JUDGE
cks
Cont. Case (C) No.1143 of 2024 in W.P.(C) No.40202 of 2023
3
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 1143/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-1CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
4.12.2023 IN W.P.(C).NO. 40202/2023 OF
THIS HON'BLE COURT.
Annexure-2TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/220338/
2023 DATED 17.5.2024 OF THE RESPONDENT
RELATED TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
Annexure-3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/220193/
2023 DATED 9.5.2024 OF THE RESPONDENT
RELATED TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the contempt petition should proceed after the respondent passed a revised order considering specific judgments.
SARANYA.P.T
RASHIDA PARAKKAL
RAMESH KUMAR
VIJU ABRAHAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court